USGovt to further step up sanctions on Iran.

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm rather surprised that you are. It's not that those in nations with nuclear weapons are saying "we have them so others should be able to as well". It's that they are recognizing that the people in those nations are likely to feel that way. Because pretty much anyone would. It's little more than a classic application of the Golden Rule.

Or, to use your analogy, it's all well and good for the 10 kids who already have lollipops to decide nobody else should have them, but it would not be realistic to think Johnny would be happy with that state of affairs.

Your argument presupposes two things.

First that all "Johnnies" are the same and second that nuclear weapons are lollipops.

If you think otherwise then I submit that some people do have machine guns, and other high damage potential. In the name of the golden rule everyone now has unfettered access to them. Some people can carry dangerous weapons most anywhere. Now everyone can.

Johnny might not like being denied. How much should that count?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm rather surprised that you are. It's not that those in nations with nuclear weapons are saying "we have them so others should be able to as well". It's that they are recognizing that the people in those nations are likely to feel that way. Because pretty much anyone would. It's little more than a classic application of the Golden Rule.

Or, to use your analogy, it's all well and good for the 10 kids who already have lollipops to decide nobody else should have them, but it would not be realistic to think Johnny would be happy with that state of affairs.

Yes I see that argument, but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue of what measures, if any, should be taken to prevent proliferation. The way it sounds from Craig's postings, it's like he's suggesting that we have no moral authority to ask Iran to not develop nuclear weapons because we developed them ourselves 70 years ago. It also sounds like he's suggesting we should unilaterally disarm and that somehow this might curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. This is naive at best. Iran would likely still desire to develop them even without the US or Israel having them because Iran has ambitions on being the dominant power in the middle east and having nukes gives them that leverage.

As I said, the countries who have nuclear weapons will not unilaterally disarm. Their possession of these weapons is a done deal. That is why it is so critical to prevent other nations from acquiring them because once they do, they too will never disarm.

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humanity. When nations try to prevent other nations from acquiring them, we should be united in that goal. I don't see how blaming the countries who are trying to prevent it for having developed these weapon decades ago is at all productive to that goal. The overriding fact is that we can't give them these lollypops no matter how much their feelings may be hurt, and arguing anything else to the contrary seems entirely counter-productive to me.

It appears to me that some people, especially certain people on the left, are so intent on blaming all the worlds ills on the US and/or Israel that they can't set it aside even when the goal is nuclear non-proliferation. I find that highly disturbing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Who is making that argument in this thread? I’m certainly not making the jump from ‘is’ to ‘ought’


Please pardon the mixed metaphor but your “Johnny and the lollypop” analogy is a ‘straw man’ of your own construction. We all know what uranium/plutonium bombs can do, we have all seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Do you count Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as “unfortunate” or perfectly reasonable and thus now time-honoured? Is it OK for Israel to have nukes because it never signed the nuclear NPT? Not all acquisitions are lost in the mist of time. Korea became a nuclear weapons nation as recently as 2009.

Please take a little more care to read the posts you're responding to. You may have missed where I said that had I been around when Israel acquired them, I would have opposed it. I oppose any and all nations acquiring them period. However, I am a realist. Nations who are currently nuclear armed are not going to disarm, certainly not unilaterally. That much should be obvious. Accordingly, I fail to see how Israel's possession of nukes is at all relevant to what the stance of the US should be toward Iran or any other country acquiring them.

As to who is making the argument, I see no other purpose for the points being made if it isn't to excuse Iran acquiring nukes. What else is the point? Is any rational course of action being suggested here?

That is a counsel of despair and a completely hypocritical argument. It is tantamount to saying, to develop further your playground metaphor, that since we cannot influence the ‘big school bullies’ we might as well beat up on the weaker kids! The weaker kids know that they will not get bullied if they get nukes!
This is not to say that every nation ‘should’ HAVE nukes, it is an argument that explains why many nations are rational to WANT nukes. If the ‘big boys’ strut about the yard announcing who they are going to bomb next, whilst simultaneously saying their nukes are ‘non negotiable’, then they represent, at the very least, a very poor example of ‘moral’ guidance.

I am not talking about "beating up anyone." I'm talking about not letting more countries acquire nuclear weapons. If that is "beating up on the little guy" then you've made your position clear. It's exactly what I said: you're making excuses for them to acquire these weapons by casting the powers in favor of non-proliferation as the bad guy.

Frankly, I don't care why they "want" to have them. It should be a priority not to let them.

Once again, who on this thread is making an argument in favour of nuclear proliferation?

If you aren't arguing that we should back off, then what are you even arguing? Please explain the relevance or constructive purpose to any of yours or Craig's remarks about Israel unless that is precisely what you mean.

You seem to be arguing for the status quo ante, as if all nuclear weapons currently on the world’s stage are necessary evils but the next one (Iran, in this context) will be the ‘game changer’? Pakistan, a failed Muslim state on the threshold of collapse, has nuclear weapons, for ‘goodness’ sake. Could it really get any worse than that?

I never said necessary evils. I said they have these weapons and it's clear that no country who has them will ever unilaterally disarm. That is a practical reality. It has nothing to do with what is "necessary" or what should or ought to be.

And I never said anything about "game changer." Every country who acquires these weapons increases the probability that they will eventually be used in anger. Whether that is Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, or some other hypothetical country to acquire them in the future. Why does it have to be a "game changer" for us to oppose them acquiring nukes?

I think we both know that neither event will come to pass in our lifetimes. Fancy another $10 bet? Inventions cannot be ‘disinvented’.

I wouldn't take that bet because I'm sure you are unfortunately correct. Which is precisely my point. We can't get rid of the nukes which already exist except perhaps with some incremental arms reduction treaties but this will not alter the existential threat by much at all. We do, however, at least stand a chance of preventing other countries from acquiring them, or at least delaying it.

So, the case of a tiny nation like Israel ‘getting away with it’, despite your gallant and principled opposition, seems to provide a perfect motive for Iran, with ten times her population, to give it a go?

Iran already has plenty of "motive" to acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran was the sole middle east power with nukes, it gains leverage over the rest of the middle east. Israel having them is a convenient excuse but I seriously doubt their intentions would be any different if Israel did not have them.

But even if you're right, that Israel having them is a necessary condition for Iran's nuclear ambitions, so what? Unless you are actually arguing that we could somehow disarm Israel, or that Iran should be allowed to have nukes because Israel cannot be disarmed, this entire line of argument is a just a deflection. What, as a practical matter, should we do with Iran's nuclear ambitions? Unilaterally disarm ourselves and/or Israel? Let Iran have its nukes? If the answer is neither, then what pray tell is the point of the arguments you and Craig are advancing here? I see only one logical course of action, to do what we can, within reason (i.e. probably not military action) to prevent it. What, if anything, are you suggesting in the alternative?

History is against you there. Only one nation has dropped nukes on human targets and they were the only nation that had them at that time.
When America realised that Russia was close to producing a nuclear weapon in 1949, because of infiltration of the Manhattan project by Claus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs, General Curtis LeMay announced that a whole nation might need to be sacrificed in a nuclear war to preserve “world peace”(see wiki).. There is little doubt that the nation he had in mind was the soon to be nuclear, USSR. With the exception of the Cuba missile crisis of 1962, which forced the USSR to withdraw nukes from Cuba and the USA to take ICBMs from Turkey, the world has had far fewer ‘nuclear’ than ‘conventional’ threats to peace.

Wait, history is against me how? Why is it relevant that only the US used nukes in anger? Are you asking me to assume that only the US is capable of using them? Just trying to track your logic here. Only the US has ever used nukes, therefore no other countries who have them will ever use them?

Sorry, whatever convoluted point you're trying to make here, I'm going to assume the obvious: that the more countries/people whose hands these weapons find their way into, the greater the incremental risk of their use.

Those two statements are not joined. The first is a comment on US history. The second sentence has to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How are these two statements linked?
If Iran is not justified in having these ‘hideous weapons’, is Israel so justified?

Please read more carefully the posts you are responding to.

If neither is justified, then no nation is justified in having “hideous weapons”.

Well duh.

If Israel is justified in having them and Iran is not, then the onus is on you to say what features of Israel make her possession of the ‘hideous weapons’ you acknowledge she has, justified, while Iran’s ambition is verboten.

It's a rare talent to take a straw man ("Israel is justified") and continue to ply the same straw man over and over again in the same post as if nothing is out of place.

My post 19, a distorted version to which you seem to be responding, did not single out the USA for criticism. I specifically mentioned the UK and Russia as being equally venal and hypocritical.
My post had nothing to do with ‘fairness’ or playground games. I was pointing out that it is grossly hypocritical and inconsistent for nations with nuclear arms (that they refuse to stop developing) to urge others who want them to abandon attempts to acquire them.

Point of clarification, I hadn't read your post 19 at the time I wrote my post. I was referring entirely to Craig's postings.

But since you are restating your point, which is hypocrisy, I'll answer it. I don't give a damn if it's hypocritical. What I want to know, per the topic of the thread, is whether economic sanctions or other measures should be taken to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. You can revel in glee at this hypocrisy all you want. I'm more concerned with nuclear non-proliferation because nukes scare me. It sounds to me like you and Craig want to use this discussion as an opportunity to criticize the US and Israel but neither of you has any practical suggestions on how we should deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Which is precisely why I interpreted Craig's posts the way I did. I see criticism of the US for trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes coupled with no practical suggestions on how to prevent it. You guys may not want Iran to have nukes in some abstract sense but I see no particular interest in either of you in preventing it.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I guess my argument is that they are totally entitled to feel that way, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them. (or try)

Isn't that argument a bit like saying 'I understand why slaves want to end slavery, and they're entitled to want to, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them, or try'?

It entirely removes the issue of fairness, of justice.

*We* would be in a frenzy of rage at the idea that another nation could hold a nuclear monopoly over us - with all the threat that implies - even if they're already able to get what they want from us,eventually, manipulating our government and with a massively more powerful non-nuclear military and 'sanctions' that wear our economy down weakiening our own military even further.

It doesn't mean we just say 'well that's not fair, so let's have everyone have nuclear weapons' (which is where the slavery analogy would break down, as that is a solution).

But it does mean that we should look at the issue with more of an eye to justice than simply to say 'well, we LIKE having the monopoly and advantage, and so even if that leads to a permanent second class status for them, whatever that comes to mean - think Palestinians and Israel for one example - that's fine for us, and we'll use force to ensure it'.

It means, that thinking more about justice, that we should take a harder look at the issues than simply 'we like it how it is', and consider options from getting rid of ALL nucleal weapons - formerly our national goal for both parties, now a crazy commie leftist idea - or some sort of 'guarantee' of security for everyone else from their use, which might be kind of meaningless (those 'all options are on the table' phrases are too tempting for our presidents in times of crisis).

The starting point is at least viewing it as an unfairness, and looking at policy options in that light.

The road to gradual proliferation - hey, no problem that Pakistan got them, right - is one filled with massive danger.

But the one filled with 'proliferation is bad, so it's no problem to just have them always under a threat we souldn't accept' is neither just - nor safe, given the dangers of proliferation we can't practically prevent - as Pakistan shows (not to mention even the second nation to obtain them, who we didnt' want to either).

It's very easy for people to just take the position 'it's not a problem' when we have the advantage. And to treat the people complaining about the unfairness like they're doing something wrong to us. While the causes are not the same, consider all the white anger towards civil rights protestors - THOSE people are bothering US about something WE don't mind being the situation. Let's go beat them.' That's kind of human nature.

Well, on civil rights, that lasted for a century after slavery ended before whites' anger had the lucky chance to find unusual government leadership that would agree the unfairness WAS a problem and take then-unpoular actions to fix it. On nuclear unfairness, we're still very much in the 'we're happy having the advantage, and angry at anyone who points out the unfairness, and we'll use violence against anyone who actually tries to change it' position, ignoring any other solutions to the issue.

One thing making it harder is that it's easy for people to think, 'the nations who have them are safe and nice people who won't misuse them, while the people who don't are dangerous, so it's ok to treat them unfairly'. A comfortable way of looking at things that justifies ignoring any unfairness, a bit like 'separate but equal' was a comfortable way of looking at discrimination that justified not doing anyting about that unfairness. Again, I'm not comparing the issues, just the way people with an advantage tend to view that.

I heard Robert NcNamara say we'd be perfectly safe with no nuclear weapons. Of course, we'd have to ensure others don't have them either - something that's apparently technically feasible. I'm sympathetic to the concerns that no nuclear weapons could open dangers to more conventional war - that there might be something to 'MAD' having prevented some conventional war (though we'd be viewing that benefit differently if a crisis like the Cuban Missile Crisis had resulted in nuclea war as it came very close to doing).

Our war on Saddam - bad of a guy as he was - sent just the wrong message about the nations whoi don't have nukes needing them, just as our selfish and immoral CIA overthrow of democracy in Iran did and our faction that is constnatly pushing for war with Iran does. It shows they ARE at risk from us and that nuclear weapons seem to be the only way for them to be safe from us - the very message we don't want sent if we want them to accept non-prolieration.

As I said, the first step is to switch from 'we're happy, we have an advantage, kill them if they complain' to recognizing a large 'fairness' issue and asking what can be done that is more fair short of proliferation. NOT doing that greatly increases the pressure on Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, barring any acceptable alternative.

Not treating it as a problem and trying to be more fair might result in the very thing we don't want - a nuclear Iran and thenperhaps actual nuclear war.

And we'd have little to blame in that case but our own disinterest in any sense of fairness to others. Of we were in their shoes, we'd likely do the same thing.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

Even if that's true, Ahmedinejad was still the brains behind their policy... he made things happen (or at least helped).

Craig made some good points about them wanting nukes, but I'm not sure they prove it. I don't know why they would pre-emptively nuke us. Israel may or may not be at risk, but the reason they're dealing with people they don't want to is because their State is too centralized and militaristic. Some Israelis realize that the State is illegitimate, but sadly it's not a majority.

I'm not saying what they're actually doing. I'm saying it makes sense for them to want nuclear weapons for their own protection, and it's plausible they are pursuing them.

I don't think Iran or anyone else is anxious to launch a nuclear attack, given they know it'd result in a nuclear response.

I think that there are some who would launch one if they did NOT feel there'd be a nuclear response; we've had lots of people and some elected and military leaders in this country who have wanted to use them, and I'd say countries like Pakistan and North Korea would seem to have little stopping them. The point isn't that Iran wants to start a nuclear war, but rather than a high level of proliferation increases risk.. When even fewer nations had them, the first two - the US and USSR - nearly had a massive nuclear war. It seems India and Pakistan have come close.

Over decades and longer, every major conflict, every time a country with nukes is going to lose a war, it's an increased risk of their use.

We've helped ensure than Iran is surrounded by enemies, and that we're one presidential election away from a president who sings 'bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran'. There's two problems with that - one is that a nuclear Iran would pretty clearly pose a major risk for initiating nuclear use as our aggression increases, if they are losing a war; the other is that our very aggression makes them need that defense in the first place.

One option is to simply divide the world in two parts - those who have weapons, and get to enjoy taking whatever actions they like against those who don't without fear of any nuclear reprisal, and those who don't and will always be subject to whatever pressures the nuclear powers care to bring to make them 'second class nations', poorer and weaker and doing things like offering their resources at very low prices - such as how iran had to provide control of their oil to England as the reason for the 1953 coup.

Not a very 'fair' option, and not terribly safe, either, if proliferation can't be controlled.

So, it'd be nice if we had the political interest in looking for others.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes I see that argument, but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue of what measures, if any, should be taken to prevent proliferation.

It's relevant because it both illustrates an understanding of how these nations feel about the issue, and an acceptance of the practicalities involved.

Simply put, we are not going to be able to prevent motivated nations from acquiring nuclear capabilities. We have to find a framework for coexistence with these nations; fighting them and preaching from what we consider higher moral ground will only gain us intractible enemies who feel they have no reason to listen to anything we say at all.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's relevant because it both illustrates an understanding of how these nations feel about the issue, and an acceptance of the practicalities involved.

Simply put, we are not going to be able to prevent motivated nations from acquiring nuclear capabilities. We have to find a framework for coexistence with these nations; fighting them and preaching from what we consider higher moral ground will only gain us intractible enemies who feel they have no reason to listen to anything we say at all.

I am reading a lot of generalities about "fairness," "justice" and Iran's perceived "motives" for wanting nuclear weapons (all defensive of course.)

I just want to make this clear: you are saying we should take no measures to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons? If you're not saying this, then what then are you suggesting we do? Please try to be specific. So, for example, there is a treaty in place which precludes the signatories from acquiring nuclear weapons. Is our first step to abdicate the treaty? Should we end sanctions now?

 

[Caravaggio]

In response to Woolfe (28)

Please take a little more care to read the posts you're responding to. You may have missed where I said that had I been around when Israel acquired them, I would have opposed it.

Err, it is you who needs to take more care in this respect. I read your posts with great care and of course learn much from them.
If you go back to my post 22 you will see that I have not only read your post 21 in full, but I HAVE ACTUALLY QUOTED and responded to, the very section you claim that I passed over. More attention, please.

I oppose any and all nations acquiring them period. However, I am a realist.

Your realism is undoubtedly pragmatic but it amounts to little more than status quo fence-sitting. You deplore nuclear proliferation but you admit that nothing can be done to a nation that has acquired nukes. Thus you opposed Israel’s bomb before she had it but now she has it, it is too late to act against it!

It is generally agreed that Japan is just a “screwdriver’s turn” from nuclear weapons, if she wishes to have them. Japan could be a nuclear power in two weeks if desired.
Let us suppose that she took that step. You would condemn it, of course; no doubt with real sincerity. But it seems that you would accept that fact and say too late, “we must live with that”. A nuclear Japan would be a part of your new status quo and you would have to adapt to it, as you adapted to Israel’s nuclear capability, if you wish to remain credible and consistent.

The reason people in your camp struggle with this issue is because the US also struggles with this issue. The NPT is a farce. Israel, India and Pakistan have not signed it. Israel’s nukes are ignored by the US partly because the Hungarian/American Ede Telle (Edward Teller) helped to design them. The US asked him not to go to Israel to advise them but he went four times. There were stern words but no other repercussions. The US owed Teller a ‘favour’ for the H-bomb.
Nor has the US acted against India. Far from it. According to the Yusuf paper published by the Brookings Institute, India has actually received nods of approval and technical help from the US. Iran was a NPT signatory under the Shah, but the new regime is still regarded by the US as being bound by that lapsed authority. Hardly consistent treatment?

The US State Department accepts that nuclear proliferation is inevitable but that it will not be as rapid as the pessimists claim. We have enjoyed 68 years of nuclear peace since Nagasaki. MAD prevents mutual self immolation, for new powers and old powers alike. The only time when a nuclear war could have been ‘won’ was in early 1949 when SAC General Curtis LeMay said he would be happy to nuke Russia before they built up enough weapons to retaliate.

The desire for nuclear weapons by currently non-nuclear states is a perfectly rational and a normal reaction to the fact that such possession brings with it international clout. That North Korea, a desperately poor and authoritarian nation, should be spending so much of her meagre resources on nukes is an abomination, but seen from NK the goal looks very attractive, because, as you so rightly say:

Nations who are currently nuclear armed are not going to disarm

You prove my point

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I just want to make this clear: you are saying we should take no measures to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons? If you're not saying this, then what then are you suggesting we do? Please try to be specific. So, for example, there is a treaty in place which precludes the signatories from acquiring nuclear weapons. Is our first step to abdicate the treaty? Should we end sanctions now?

We can take steps to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. But if they are based on an attitude of "we have them, you can't, nyeah nyeah" they are likely to be ineffective.

Unfortunately the clear message that the US has sent -- via such matters as our action against Iraq and our non-action against North Korea -- is that it is in a country's best interest to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. I think that way too many people in the US are hung up on this mindset that it's fine for us to have them but to stop everyone else, to the point where they actually think the people on the other side would have this same attitude.

I don't buy the line that Iran is run by suicidal maniacs who will nuke Israel as soon as their warheads come online, and even if I'd rather they didn't have them, I'd prefer to see us bring them to the bargaining table rather than intentionally making them outcasts. Because whether we like it or not, they are very likely to have nuclear capability if they want it.

The reason people in your camp struggle with this issue is because the US also struggles with this issue. The NPT is a farce. Israel, India and Pakistan have not signed it. Israel’s nukes are ignored by the US partly because the Hungarian/American Ede Telle (Edward Teller) helped to design them. The US asked him not to go to Israel to advise them but he went four times. There were stern words but no other repercussions. The US owed Teller a ‘favour’ for the H-bomb.

This comes across as conspiracy theory nonsense. You really think the US would make major policy decisions out of a believe that it owed a "favor" to a scientist?

Maybe the US did nothing about Israel's nuclear weapon program because the US wanted Israel to have nuclear weapons.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We can take steps to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. But if they are based on an attitude of "we have them, you can't, nyeah nyeah" they are likely to be ineffective.

Unfortunately the clear message that the US has sent -- via such matters as our action against Iraq and our non-action against North Korea -- is that it is in a country's best interest to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. I think that way too many people in the US are hung up on this mindset that it's fine for us to have them but to stop everyone else, to the point where they actually think the people on the other side would have this same attitude.

I don't buy the line that Iran is run by suicidal maniacs who will nuke Israel as soon as their warheads come online, and even if I'd rather they didn't have them, I'd prefer to see us bring them to the bargaining table rather than intentionally making them outcasts. Because whether we like it or not, they are very likely to have nuclear capability if they want it.



This comes across as conspiracy theory nonsense. You really think the US would make major policy decisions out of a believe that it owed a "favor" to a scientist?

Maybe the US did nothing about Israel's nuclear weapon program because the US wanted Israel to have nuclear weapons.

To address a few points ot Charles.

While NK has nukes, at this point they are more a threat to themselves than others. Looking at their policy statements over past decades, they are obsessed with control of SK and attacking the US. The US issue I suspect us due to support of SK and prevention if a unified Korea back in the early 50s.

We treat NK as a problem child, not an equal and in bugs their leadership. They are not treated as a threat, even with their so called nuke capability.

Pakistan and India I am unable to comment on. I do not know enough of the story.

Israel, I agree with. A scientist conspiracy. A better way to look at it is that the US in spirit supported Israel bring surrounded by enemies, all proxies of the Soviets. A force multiplier was needed to ensure her safety. The potential of having nukes has helped deter large scale coordinated attacks like existed previously.

The Arab nationalists realized that Israel would not get marched into the sea easily.

Iran has had the opportunity to renounce the NPT since the overthrow of the Shah. They have not, so still are obligated under the NPT.

And Iran is going around threatening to eliminate Israel as a country. If they are making such statement while they do not have the tech, what happens when they have it. Already they farm out weapons and funding to attack Israel via proxies. Ship killers were sent to Hezbollah prior to the last skirmish.

It would not surprise me that chemical weapons have been covered to Syria from Iran.

 

[Craig234]

A better way to look at it is that the US in spirit supported Israel bring surrounded by enemies, all proxies of the Soviets. A force multiplier was needed to ensure her safety. The potential of having nukes has helped deter large scale coordinated attacks like existed previously.

Question of principle for you then: isn't that situation similar to the USSR if they made Cuba a nuclear nation, as they were surrounded by enemies? A force multiplier was needed to ensure her safety as well, and having nukes would have deterred large scale attacs like the Bay of Pigs invasion. In fact, the case was stronger - the US had planned and supported the Bay of Pigs invasion and was a threat to invade again, while the Soviets never planned and supported an invasion of Israel.

Nevermind that now the history is that we did not invade Cuba again - there was every indication we would likely do so at the time.

So why weren't the Soviets as justifed to support Cuba with nukes as us with Israel?

And Iran is going around threatening to eliminate Israel as a country. If they are making such statement while they do not have the tech, what happens when they have it. Already they farm out weapons and funding to attack Israel via proxies. Ship killers were sent to Hezbollah prior to the last skirmish.

It would not surprise me that chemical weapons have been covered to Syria from Iran.

Stop repeating that falsehood that Iran's stated policy is to want to 'eliminate Israel' as if they'd nuke them if they had nukes. Name one person in power in Iran who had said that; the whole basis is one translated statement from the former president, and even he said that's not what he was saying.

Clearly he was saying he'd prefer the government of Israel was gone, as a powerful enemy state in the region. That's not the same as threatening nuclear war. There are plenty of countries the US would like to see the same thing about, and it doesn't mean we're about to nuke them. That is simply propaganda. When one nation wants to use violence, it paints the target as a threat to make it seem like self-defense. That propaganda is simply to justify OUR using aggressive violence against Iran.

Of course they send out weapons to their allies - just as we send far more.

In fact, you appear to either not know or appreciate it, but we have a hell of a history with a 'death squad training school' training brutal police forces for allies in various countries.

We give billions a year in miitary aid to Israel - but you complain that Iran gives aid to the 'other side'. Oh no, they're terrorists. I'm sure Iran woud trade places to be by far the most powerful side, while our side had to use terrorism as the only tactic available. I guess the assassinations done by Israel, the innocents killed in thousands of drone strikes, the innocents who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, many subjected to rendition and torture - those don't count. It's easy when you only look at one side's wrongs, isn't it?

You accuse Iran of supplying chemical weapons to Syria, based on nothing - while ignoring that Iran is the biggest VICTIM of the use of chemical weapons and nerve gas in modern history - with our taking the side of the country using those weapons, protecting Saddam from Iran's retaliation for a war Saddam started where a million were killed, many by WMD.

You ignore the acts of actual support of the use of those weapons by us, while making baseless accusation against the victim of those weapons.

In fact, at the time, Iran brought the issue to the United Nations, claiming the WMD were being used, saying the UN is supposed to care about that - it was just released this month that the US had the information confirming the WMD were being used, but we sat silent not doing anything about it letting Iran try to persuade the UN on its own.

That's a double standard on this 'international norm' against WMD. You don't care about that, do you?

Whether suppressing voters or an ally using WMD, all that matters is attacking the other side and ignoring your side's wrongs, right?

It's that very one-sided approach that is not only problematic morally but tends to create the very conflict and violence we should want to prevent.

You seem to have basically no idea about applying principles to your own side as well. Principles are only useful as standards to attack your enemies when they violate them.

But that's sort of the point isn't it - creating an environment with that violence, where we can do what we like with our strong military power to others, and make excuses?

I'm still waiting for you to say one word against our having overthrown Iranian democracy in 1953 to protect England's control of their oil. Why can't you stand up for democracy?

 

[EagleKeeper]

A better way to look at it is that the US in spirit supported Israel bring surrounded by enemies, all proxies of the Soviets. A force multiplier was needed to ensure her safety. The potential of having nukes has helped deter large scale coordinated attacks like existed previously.

Question of principle for you then: isn't that situation similar to the USSR if they made Cuba a nuclear nation, as they were surrounded by enemies?How many nations conspired to attack Cuba? What other enemies were their in the Carribian that were threatening to attack/wipe Israel off the map? A force multiplier was needed to ensure her safety as well, and having nukes would have deterred large scale attacks like the Bay of Pigs invasion. In fact, the case was stronger - the US had planned and supported the Bay of Pigs invasion and was a threat to invade again, while the Soviets never planned and supported an invasion of Israel.

Ignoring that 3 times; Israel was attack by Soviet proxies before nukes came into the picture. Bay of Pigs can be equivalent to the Palestinians causing problems with Israel. Cuba handles their invasion; Israel does the same with the Palestinian PITAs




Nevermind that now the history is that we did not invade Cuba again - there was every indication we would likely do so at the time.

So why weren't the Soviets as justifed to support Cuba with nukes as us with Israel?
The Soviets chose to put missiles in Cuba to support their political ambitions.
They also pulled them out when push came to shove. They were in control of them; Cuba just happened to be a land base.

I do not see us putting missiles in Israel that we control.

And Iran is going around threatening to eliminate Israel as a country. If they are making such statement while they do not have the tech, what happens when they have it. Already they farm out weapons and funding to attack Israel via proxies. Ship killers were sent to Hezbollah prior to the last skirmish.

It would not surprise me that chemical weapons have been covered to Syria from Iran.

Stop repeating that falsehood that Iran's stated policy is to want to 'eliminate Israel' as if they'd nuke them if they had nukes. Name one person in power in Iran who had said that; the whole basis is one translated statement from the former president, and even he said that's not what he was saying.
I do not state that Iran will eliminate Israel with nukes. I will state that Iran leadership has stated they want to wipe Israel/Zionists off the map. People can debate the wording all along; when called on it; Iran has refused to change the wording and/or attempt to clarify it. the president of Iran says that it was a mistranslation and yet will not state what the original intention was. There are people that speak Arabic and Persian that fully understand the implications of what he was intending.

Clearly he was saying he'd prefer the government of Israel was gone, as a powerful enemy state in the region. That's not the same as threatening nuclear war. And I did not state that he was threatening nuclear war. Iran may decide that they can succeed with a nuclear attack directly or through a proxy. They may also feel that having nukes prevents them for retaliation to additional actions of theirs.There are plenty of countries the US would like to see the same thing about, and it doesn't mean we're about to nuke them. That is simply propaganda. When one nation wants to use violence, it paints the target as a threat to make it seem like self-defense. That propaganda is simply to justify OUR using aggressive violence against Iran.

Of course they send out weapons to their allies - just as we send far more.

In fact, you appear to either not know or appreciate it, but we have a hell of a history with a 'death squad training school' training brutal police forces for allies in various countries.

We give billions a year in miitary aid to Israel - but you complain that Iran gives aid to the 'other side'. Oh no, they're terrorists. I'm sure Iran woud trade places to be by far the most powerful side, while our side had to use terrorism as the only tactic available. I guess the assassinations done by Israel, the innocents killed in thousands of drone strikes, the innocents who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, many subjected to rendition and torture - those don't count. It's easy when you only look at one side's wrongs, isn't it?
You have your opinion on how you would like the Jewish/Arab conflict to play out; I have another

You accuse Iran of supplying chemical weapons to Syria, based on nothing - while ignoring that Iran is the biggest VICTIM of the use of chemical weapons and nerve gas in modern history - with our taking the side of the country using those weapons, protecting Saddam from Iran's retaliation for a war Saddam started where a million were killed, many by WMD.
I did not accuse them of supplying chemical weapons; I stated that they might have. Large difference

You ignore the acts of actual support of the use of those weapons by us, while making baseless accusation against the victim of those weapons.

In fact, at the time, Iran brought the issue to the United Nations, claiming the WMD were being used, saying the UN is supposed to care about that - it was just released this month that the US had the information confirming the WMD were being used, but we sat silent not doing anything about it letting Iran try to persuade the UN on its own.

That's a double standard on this 'international norm' against WMD. You don't care about that, do you?
Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in their conflict. Iraq happened at the time to be the country that we supported. Part may have been because of Iran's actions with respect to our embassy. Attacking what is considered to be the land of another country and political leaders does not stand well with the US

Whether suppressing voters or an ally using WMD, all that matters is attacking the other side and ignoring your side's wrongs, right? IF there is an option; then a one sided statement does not sit well. What may be considered to be voter suppression by you is a enforcement of the law to me. Prove that you are you. Excuses do not count nor the fact that it was OK before.

It's that very one-sided approach that is not only problematic morally but tends to create the very conflict and violence we should want to prevent.

You seem to have basically no idea about applying principles to your own side as well. Principles are only useful as standards to attack your enemies when they violate them.

But that's sort of the point isn't it - creating an environment with that violence, where we can do what we like with our strong military power to others, and make excuses?

I'm still waiting for you to say one word against our having overthrown Iranian democracy in 1953 to protect England's control of their oil. Why can't you stand up for democracy?

Why do I need to say a word about an overthrow?
Many countries have leadership that we do not like.
We look at what first is in our best interests; then our allies then our proxies.

Anything else weakens us. Enemies do not have morals; they look for and attack weaknesses.

 

[Craig234]

EK, your post is badly formatted for a reply.

You did not respond to my question on the USSR supporting Cuba having nukes. You instead raised some irrelvant issue about the difference of Israel having nukes versus the nukes that were in Cuba being controlled by the USSR. I specifically asked about the USSR supporting Cuba having nukes similar to how the US supports Istael having nukes, which you ignored.

You're continuing to make implications about Iran you can't back up, talking out of both sides of your mouth, while still implying they can't want to go to war with Israel.

You ask why you need to say anything about our overthrowing democracy in Iran.

To show that you have any morality and respect for democracy, rather than simply supporting any bad actions we do in our 'interest'. That you have some values.

Evil is spread by people who dehumanize enemies and justify their own bad actions based on the claim the 'other guy' would do the same or worse, true or not.

That's what you are doing talking about 'enemies do not have any morals'. It's that sort of thinking that leads to more violence in the world.

Iran had done nothing wrong to deserve the overthrow of their democracy - they had simply wanted to take back control of their own oil. We're the bad guys there.

You apparently have no moral standards whatsoever regarding our behavior. Everything is simply good because we did it.

Reminds me of Nixon's quote that anything the President does is legal because he did it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Formatting is screwed up by the phone.

I tried to bold individual areas in response to issues raised.

To reiterate the Cuba item.
Cuba was not the one that wanted nukes; USSR wanted a land based platform and Cuba was convenient. Cuba did not control the missile; Soviets did.
The US then "objected", the Soviets got the message and removed the missiles.

Cuba had no other enemies in the Caribbean other than the US. Those island nations are poor; not wealthy and able to support anything more than a local police force.


Israel had actual enemies along her physical borders that had demonstrated hostile intents multiple times against the country. the soviets just happened to be major supporters/sponsors of those nations.
Israel had some support from France and luke warm support initially from the US.
Most of its supplies were purchased and shipped by individual Jewish groups.

That seems to be a different story than Cuba.

With respect to Iran/Israel.
Iran (leadership) would like to get rid of Israel.
They just do not have the capability at this time to do so on their own.
I feel that them getting nuclear capability give them a stronger backbone. Are they "crazy" enough to use the nuke; religious fanatics are unpredictable.
It is just as possible that nuclear capability gets slipped to an organization that likes to attack Iran's enemies.

 

[Anarchist420]

Iran had done nothing wrong to deserve the overthrow of their democracy - they had simply wanted to take back control of their own oil. We're the bad guys there. You apparently have no moral standards whatsoever regarding our behavior. Everything is simply good because we did it. Reminds me of Nixon's quote that anything the President does is legal because he did it.

Yep.

Iran (leadership) would like to get rid of Israel.

They should know that they can't annihilate an entire group of people and I don't think that their leadership is that evil anyway. Now, if they get rid of the State of Israel, then that would be nice, but they can't get rid of Jewish people.

Many evil people have tried to murder every Jew before, but the former failed fortunately.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Iran (leadership) would like to get rid of Israel.

They should know that they can't annihilate an entire group of people and I don't think that their leadership is that evil anyway. Now, if they get rid of the State of Israel, then that would be nice, but they can't get rid of Jewish people.

Many evil people have tried to murder every Jew before, but the former failed fortunately.

And how would you get rid of the State of Israel without destroying the country itself.

Wave a magic wand and the country goes away. :|

while getting rid of Israel; then how about removing all the other countries created at the same time out of the same block of land

 

[Anarchist420]

And how would you get rid of the State of Israel without destroying the country itself.

The people there are always free to move. I'd be happy to have more Jewish people in America.

It's really detrimental, in my opinion, for the Jews to have a State because the Arabs are always going to try to murder them if Jews are concentrated in one area. Do you think that the alliance between the State of Israel and the American State brings all Israelis together in friendship with all Americans? If you think that it does, then why do you think it does so?

I don't think it does, I think it binds the people by robbing them while the elite (the American military industrial complex for one) get richer and stronger.

The State of Israel was created by the illegitimate U.N. and that area was rightfully owned by the original inhabitants, the Arabs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Prior to the UN; the Jews already lived there in close relations with the Arabs.

They had purchased the land; developed it for agricultural use and created communities.

How far back do you want to go; why try to appease the Arabs that surround the area. What strategic value does Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Trans Jordan have? Oil - very little.

Notice that the Arabs originally tried to destroy Israel and failed. The neighboring states have come to terms with such.
Hezbollah and Hamas are just the object of frustrations and a excuse point by the Arab nations.
Note that the Palestinians are treated as non-Arabs w/ respect to passports and travel documents. They can not even travel freely between Gaza and Egypt or the Wet Bank and Jordan. Realize that the "camps" that the Palestinians are so proud of were created by the Arabs, not Israel; because the Arabs did not want the Palestinians in their countries, even though they were the ones that created the crises.
Israel has had the ability to remove the Palestinians/Hamas/Hezbollah permanently if they were not more concerned than their opponents.

As to your statement regarding friendship; it makes no sense to me

 

[Craig234]

Formatting is screwed up by the phone.

I tried to bold individual areas in response to issues raised.

To reiterate the Cuba item.
Cuba was not the one that wanted nukes; USSR wanted a land based platform and Cuba was convenient. Cuba did not control the missile; Soviets did.
The US then "objected", the Soviets got the message and removed the missiles.

You continue to completely miss the point. I changed the situation to be more like the US and Israel, asking why the USSR shouldn't have been ok to support Cuba getting nukes *the way the US has supported Israel getting them*, and you keep dodging the question and just pointing out how my question is different that what actually happened.

Yes, the USSR did not control the ACTUAL nukes in Cuba, and Israel DOES control the nukes in their country. That's the actual history and has nothing to do with my question.

Cuba had no other enemies in the Caribbean other than the US. Those island nations are poor; not wealthy and able to support anything more than a local police force.


Israel had actual enemies along her physical borders that had demonstrated hostile intents multiple times against the country. the soviets just happened to be major supporters/sponsors of those nations.
Israel had some support from France and luke warm support initially from the US.
Most of its supplies were purchased and shipped by individual Jewish groups.

That seems to be a different story than Cuba.

And that doesn't matter one bit as far as my question. The one country next to Cuba was a far greater threat to them than the countries next to Israel.

Cuba didn't have a chance against an invasion by the US, while Israel did defeat the nations next to them.

You continue to dodge the quesiton with irrelevant points trying to poing out some difference that doesn't matter as if that's an answer.

Oh, and you're factually wrong as well. Cuba had enemies - the US just dwarfed them. Where do you think the Bay of Pigs was launched from?

They weren't all that powerful of enemies other than the US - but Israel's enemies aren't all that powerful, either. But that's not the point.

With respect to Iran/Israel.
Iran (leadership) would like to get rid of Israel.
They just do not have the capability at this time to do so on their own.
I feel that them getting nuclear capability give them a stronger backbone. Are they "crazy" enough to use the nuke; religious fanatics are unpredictable.

We see that with the religious fanatics on the right in the US, calling for war a lot.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. And that wasn't even a religious fanatic.

It's easy for you to be paranoid about Iran using nukes. There's no basis for it. There is a strong basis for why they'd want them for defensive purposes.

We've been laying the groundwork for decades for war with Iran, now surrounding them with our allies (you like to talk a lot about Israel being surrounded, so is Iran now).

That's after we supported Saddam in a war launched against them using WMD killing a million Iranians.

That's after we took away their democracy and installed a tyrant and US-supplied secret police force.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

All actions you are fine with, going by your refusal to say a word against them.

It is just as possible that nuclear capability gets slipped to an organization that likes to attack Iran's enemies.

Based on nothing, again. You're like a guy who beats and rapes his neighbor and then says she's crazy, who knows what she'll do, so don't let her have a gun for defense.

Maybe there is some danger if she gets one - but you don't care you're the reason she needs it. You're continuing to misrepresent the situation with Iran with baseless claims.

I'm not saying there isn't danger from any nation - including Israel - getting nukes. But I am saying you are exaggerating the threat from Iran based on nothing.

And you are not taking any responsibility for wrongs we've done.

Who had the better justification for removing Saddam: Iran who had just been invaded by him with WMD used and a million people killed, or us based on lies about WMD?

Yet we militarily intervened to protect Saddam from Iran, until we wanted to invade. You're fine with that, right? After all, we get to determine who the world's leaders are, right?

If those happen to be tyrants who torture and oppress their people, oh well, better luck next time. It's ok with Eaglekeeper, we can do no wrong. Right?

 

[Craig234]

The people there are always free to move. I'd be happy to have more Jewish people in America.

It's really detrimental, in my opinion, for the Jews to have a State because the Arabs are always going to try to murder them if Jews are concentrated in one area.

That's terrible.

First, it's wrong that Jews don't deserve rights because others want to kill them.

Second, it's factually wrong that 'Arabs' just want to kill Jews wherever they're concentrated. Israel's neighbors object to Israel being created as the most powerful nation in their region, as a state hostile to them and for decades now a US proxy to a good extent. Maybe we'd object if the USSR turned Florida into a nation with a military far more powerful than the rest of the US, allied with them, ya think? Better yet, make it the District of Columbia, to compare it to all the locations both sides consider sacred.

Do you think that the alliance between the State of Israel and the American State brings all Israelis together in friendship with all Americans? If you think that it does, then why do you think it does so?

I don't think it does, I think it binds the people by robbing them while the elite (the American military industrial complex for one) get richer and stronger.

The State of Israel was created by the illegitimate U.N. and that area was rightfully owned by the original inhabitants, the Arabs.

Israel does just fine with the arrangement, and the UN wasn't 'illegitimate'. But the UN is nothing more than the nations who vote. It's not some separate power.

Israel is a funny thing, in a way. American values are to not have religious states, but rather secular states with freedom of religion. But we make an exception for Israel in terms of our supporting it, partly out of sympathy for the horrors done to Jews, partly because it's convenient having them as a power in the region that doesn't ally much with their neighbors but does with us, partly because a lot of Christians think Israel plays an important role in 'end times' biblical teachings (sorry, Jews, you do badly). And partly just out of a sortof blind hatred for the Muslims in the region, sort of 'screw you, we'll put a Jewish country next to you'. It's shocking they don't love the US given that approach.

We can chat all day about whether the other location considered for a state of Isral - in South America - would have been a better pick, but what's done is done.

Since that's not going to happen, what's on the table are the policies of how Israel will behave. Will they continue taking land from Palestinians and building settlements?

 

[Anarchist420]

First, it's wrong that Jews don't deserve rights because others want to kill them.

I never said that.

Second, it's factually wrong that 'Arabs' just want to kill Jews wherever they're concentrated.

True. Many Arabs want to murder Jews wherever they are.

Maybe we'd object if the USSR turned Florida into a nation with a military far more powerful than the rest of the US, allied with them, ya think?

The USSR doesn't exist. But pretending that USSR did exist, FL should be allowed to that.

Israel does just fine with the arrangement, and the UN wasn't 'illegitimate'.

I guess illegitimate was a stupid term. But the UN was created by force and it advocates force.

But the UN is nothing more than the nations who vote. It's not some separate power.

Not really. Taxes are paid to it.

American values are to not have religious states,

Agreed.

Will they continue taking land from Palestinians and building settlements?

Probably.

 

[Craig234]

I never said that.

You said that Jews should not get a state because Arabs want to kill them:

It's really detrimental, in my opinion, for the Jews to have a State because the Arabs are always going to try to murder them if Jews are concentrated in one area.

 

[Anarchist420]

You said that Jews should not get a state because Arabs want to kill them:

I said it was detrimental for them, not that they shouldn't be allowed it.